[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by MarvelPhx

It is. They both are relying on the DME to pick up the slack (supposed safety feature they both claim). Where the ProCede at least tries to modify (it is never in control of) timing with CPS offsets, the JB3 simply appears to with some extra unused wiring. I am not surprised really... you all would be SHOCKED how many "tuners" just tweak around and leave stock timing because it is too difficult to find and/or modify. And I am including people who supposedly know DME programming.

FWIW, we are in complete control of the ignition advance offsets that we induce with the PROcede. Having complete control over absolute timing values is not what we are after since I'm not sure that we can do a better job than BMW when it comes to mapping the adaptive igniton/knock control system from scratch. It seems to work quite well as it is. Well enough for some tuners to get away with just turning up the boost and having it picking up all the slack.

And I'm pretty confident our boost control logic/approach is even better than stock. But that is just my somewhat biased opinion of course.

Shiv

[CV335]

Originally Posted by sflgator

Although I am not an electrical engineer and have no idea what you're talking about (most of what you're testing anyway ), I do appreciate what you're doing. So, keep up the great work, Scalbert!

I am an electrical engineer...so you could imagine the geek in me getting all excited by seeing the oscilloscope pics and measurements LOL

I don't know much about engines though, so I really appreciate scalbert's effort in providing the members of this forum with some unbiased comparison between the different tunes. Specially for those of us who have not decided which route to pick.

[E82tt6]

Wow, awesome. The nerd in me loves this! One of my favorite things in the world is taking things apart and putting them back together.

Very interesting... I'll want to see more about this JB3/Timing bit.

[BlkSapphire]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

Also, there is no question that the timing is eventually retarded with the JB3.

Why do we know this? I haven't seen anything to support it yet.

(shiv, you did encourage us to ask technical questions!)

[sales@ESSTuning]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

FWIW, we are in complete control of the ignition advance offsets that we induce with the PROcede. Having complete control over absolute timing values is not what we are after since I'm not sure that we can do a better job than BMW when it comes to mapping the adaptive igniton/knock control system from scratch. It seems to work quite well as it is. Well enough for some tuners to get away with just turning up the boost and having it picking up all the slack.

And I'm pretty confident our boost control logic/approach is even better than stock. But that is just my somewhat biased opinion of course.

Shiv

You are in control of the CPS feedback signal, that's all. The DME bases a lot of things off it and you throw them all off, including timing (which was your only desired result). Do you know what other DME functions are directly related to the crank position? After all, the pistons are not where the DME thinks they are after you "control" the CPS. So a LOT is off actually. Knock control, misfire detection, even the air conditioning, to name a few...

"It seems to work quite well as it is." - Shiv

Perfect self-reflection. You don't have to know what its really doing as long as it works enough to sell... But what do I know, just my somewhat baised opinion of course.

I give you this much, you do more than the JB3 does!

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by BlkSapphire

Why do we know this? I haven't seen anything to support it yet.

(shiv, you did encourage us to ask technical questions!)

Sorry for not being clear. I should have said that it is obvious that the JB3 equipped car will eventually run the appropriate timing advance under boost. The question is whether it gets to that point immediately by proactively retarding ignition timing itself or retroactively by relying on the factory knock control system to react to knock (caused by over-advance) and only then retard timing.

Cheers,
shiv

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by MarvelPhx

You are in control of the CPS feedback signal, that's all. The DME bases a lot of things off it and you throw them all off, including timing (which was your only desired result). Do you know what other DME functions are directly related to the crank position? After all, the pistons are not where the DME thinks they are after you "control" the CPS. So a LOT is off actually. Knock control, misfire detection, even the air conditioning, to name a few...

"It seems to work quite well as it is." - Shiv

Perfect self-reflection. You don't have to know what its really doing as long as it works enough to sell... But what do I know, just my somewhat baised opinion of course.

I give you this much, you do more than the JB3 does!

I give you credit for digging in the MSD80/81 tech documents. Something I bet many tuners have probably never done. But now ask yourself how sensitive those other combustion related systems (such as injector phase) are to a 1-5 deg phase shift in CPS.

Also, misfire detection doesn't look at the angular velocity of crank rotation between successive teeth (each worth 3deg of timing). Its comparisons are a lot broader than that since it compares individual piston speed. As far as individual cylinder knock control goes, phase shifting the CPS a few degrees will never get you to the point where the ECU loses track of which cylinder is firing so the point is moot. So while you are correct that phase shifting the CPS influences other systems, you aren't offering any evidence of it having any detrimental effect when adjusted within the useable ranges. It's like arguing that exhaling on a scale will make you lighter. Yes, it theoretically will but you wont see the difference when you look at the output.

I know you area a big proponent of ecu reflashing. So am I. That is still a big portion of our overall business. But different approaches (stand alone, reflash, piggyback) have different inherent strengths and weaknesses. It's up to the programmer/designer to minimize the shortcomings and maximize the strengths. And this has to be done on a case-by-case basis. Making broad sweeping statements about any single type of approach is ultimately misleading.

Shiv

[sales@ESSTuning]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

I give you credit for digging in the MSD80/81 tech documents. Something I bet many tuners have probably never done. But now ask yourself how sensitive those other combustion related systems (such as injector phase) are to a 1-5 deg phase shift in CPS.

Also, misfire detection doesn't look at the angular velocity of crank rotation between successive teeth (each worth 3deg of timing). Its comparisons are a lot broader than that since it compares individual piston speed. As far as individual cylinder knock control goes, phase shifting the CPS a few degrees will never get you to the point where the ECU loses track of which cylinder is firing so the point is moot. So while you are correct that phase shifting the CPS influences other systems, you aren't offering any evidence of it having any detrimental effect when adjusted within the useable ranges. It's like arguing that exhaling on a scale will make you lighter. Yes, it theoretically will but you wont see the difference when you look at the output.

I know you area a big proponent of ecu reflashing. So am I. That is still a big portion of our overall business. But different approaches (stand alone, reflash, piggyback) have different inherent strengths and weaknesses. It's up to the programmer/designer to minimize the shortcomings and maximize the strengths. And this has to be done on a case-by-case basis. Making broad sweeping statements about any single type of approach is ultimately misleading.

Shiv

And I give you credit for answering in a logical and honest perspective. It should just be known that modifying the CPS signal doesn't just affect timing. I know you have spent an inordinant amount of time on your product with positive end results, but there is a lot more going on than a few wire interceptions can control. The piggybacks have a place in the market, but yes, they are no replacement for pure DME reprogramming.

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by MarvelPhx

And I give you credit for answering in a logical and honest perspective. It should just be known that modifying the CPS signal doesn't just affect timing. I know you have spent an inordinant amount of time on your product with positive end results, but there is a lot more going on than a few wire interceptions can control. The piggybacks have a place in the market, but yes, they are no replacement for pure DME reprogramming.

There is no replacement for DME reprogramming if one is willing to accept its limitations. Same goes for stand-alones. Same goes for piggy-backs. As someone who has spent the last 15 years tuning/developing using all three different approaches, I can honestly stay that there is no perfect solution. Just solid implementations of each approach. And of course, some not-so-solid implements of each approach.

Shiv

[Bubbles]

Originally Posted by cliverman

No. I'm enjoying the chatter. Please continue. Makes me actual smile between the "tuner war sh^t" and the actual thread info from Steve. Sorta like a commercial.

Don't entourage me

Originally Posted by scalbert

Posted about a dyno session in the Southeat section; no response yet.

Tell me when.

Originally Posted by sflgator

Scalbert,

From what I'm reading, it doesn't appear that Terry will be willing to explain how the JB3 controls timing (like "his" way is specifically patented or something ); now, Terry seems to just be making excuses saying that your tests aren't what was agreed upon and doesn't like you dissecting his product. So I guess you will have to try to figure it out on your own.

One more thing I have to say...that is if I were a vendor/distributor/retailer, selling another company's product, I would feel that it would be my right to know exactly how that product (that I am representing and selling) works; e.g. if I were N54tuning.com (a vendor on here and Terry's Forum, selling the JB3), I would insist on knowing exactly how the JB3 controls timing (not just that "it does"), so I can make my customers feel comfortable buying the product.

I am in sales, and although I do not know all the technical details of each of my products, I can tell you that if a customer asks me specifically how one of my products is processed or how it works to do xyz, my company will tell me so I can relay the information back to my customer.

Knowledge is key and knowledge is power, but knowledge also sells products.

Being in sales you are familiar with the protection afforded to trade secrets, customer lists etc.? You can't expect Terry to give up his trade secrets, but you can chose not to purchase his product. Which you have already done, so he has little motivation to share the information with you.

[lawdude]

FWIW, below is a copy of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. 43 States and DC have trade secrets laws modeled after the UTSA. Six states (Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming) have their own laws.

Uniform Trade Secrets Act

1. Definitions

As used in this Act, unless the context requires otherwise:

(1) "Improper means" includes theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of duty to maintain secrecy, or espionage through electronic or other means.

(2) "Misappropriation " means: (i) acquisition of a trade secret of another by a person who knows or has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper means; or (ii) disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent by a person who (A) used improper means to acquire knowledge of the trade secret; or (B) at the time of disclosure or use knew or had reason to know that his knowledge of the trade secret was (I) derived from or through a person who has utilized improper means to acquire it; (II) acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or (III) derived from or through a person who owed a duty to the person seeking relief to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or (C) before a material change of his position, knew or had reason to know that it was a trade secret and that knowledge of it had been acquired by accident or mistake.

(3) "Person" means a natural person, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, association, joint venture, government, governmental subdivision or agency, or any other legal or commercial entity.

(4) "Trade secret" means information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program device, method, technique, or process, that: (i) derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use, and (ii) is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.

2. Injunctive Relief

(a) Actual or threatened misappropriation may be enjoined. Upon application to the court an injunction shall be terminated when the trade secret has ceased to exist, but the injunction may be continued for an additional reasonable period of time in order to eliminate commercial advantage that otherwise would be derived from the misappropriation.

(b) In exceptional circumstances, an injunction may condition future use upon payment of a reasonable royalty for no longer than the period of time for which use could have been prohibited. Exceptional circumstances include, but are not limited to, a material and prejudicial change of position prior to acquiring knowledge or reason to know of misappropriation that renders a prohibitive injunction inequitable.

(c) In appropriate circumstances, affirmative acts to protect a trade secret may be compelled by court order.

3. Damages

(a) Except to the extent that a material and prejudicial change of position prior to acquiring knowledge or reason to know of misappropriation renders a monetary recovery inequitable, a complainant is entitled to recover damages for misappropriation. Damages can include both the actual loss caused by misappropriation and the unjust enrichment caused by misappropriation that is not taken into account in computing actual loss. In lieu of damages measured by any other methods, the damages caused by misappropriation may be measured by imposition of liability for a reasonable royalty for a misappropriator's unauthorized disclosure or use of a trade secret.

(b) If willful and malicious misappropriation exists, the court may award exemplary damages in the amount not exceeding twice any award made under subsection (a).

4. Attorney's Fees

If (i) a claim of misappropriation is made in bad faith, (ii) a motion to terminate an injunction is made or resisted in bad faith, or (iii) willful and malicious misappropriation exists, the court may award reasonable attorney's fees to the prevailing party.

5. Preservation of Secrecy

In action under this Act, a court shall preserve the secrecy of an alleged trade secret by reasonable means, which may include granting protective orders in connection with discovery proceedings, holding in-camera hearings, sealing the records of the action, and ordering any person involved in the litigation not to disclose an alleged trade secret without prior court approval.

6. Statute of Limitations

An action for misappropriation must be brought within 3 years after the misappropriation is discovered or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have been discovered. For the purposes of this section, a continuing misappropriation constitutes a single claim.

7. Effect on Other Law

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), this [Act] displaces conflicting tort, restitutionary, and other law of this State providing civil remedies for misappropriation of a trade secret.

(b) This [Act] does not affect: (1) contractual remedies, whether or not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret; or (2) other civil remedies that are not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret; or (3) criminal remedies, whether or not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret.

8. Uniformity of Application and Construction

This act shall be applied and construed to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law with respect to the subject of this Act among states enacting it.

9. Short Title

This Act may be cited as the Uniform Trade Secrets Act.

10. Severability

If any provision of this Act or its application to any person or circumstances is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of the Act which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Act are severable.

11. Time of Taking Effect

This [Act] takes effect on , and does not apply to misappropriation occurring prior to the effective date. With respect to a continuing misappropriation that began prior to the effective date, the [Act] also does not apply to the continuing misappropriation that occurs after the effective date.

[sflgator]

Originally Posted by Bubbles

Don't entourage me
Tell me when.



Being in sales you are familiar with the protection afforded to trade secrets, customer lists etc.? You can't expect Terry to give up his trade secrets, but you can chose not to purchase his product. Which you have already done, so he has little motivation to share the information with you.

I personally may not be one of his potential customers, but there may be thousands of potential customers sitting on the fence, trying to decide between the PROcede v3 and JB3. In addition, he currently has a few distributors (who also want to sell more JB3's to make more $$) of his JB3 who have no idea how the JB3 works, specifically how it controls timing. This all sounds like a motivating factor to tell all to me.

[JohnnyTT]

Does anybody else feel opening up all this information is going to attract the attention of BMW and make it easier for them to detect tunes? Yes, they could do this themselves, but you're just handing them all the info they need.

[dtg]

I just finished reading (and understanding) every word of this thread... wow, very full of words but rather empty!

So, it comes down to Terry volunteering to share how he controls timing with the JB3?

Well, Steve did the tests and he could not verify that the JB3 does control timing.

Why don't you guys just take it as it is and base your decision on that?

Shiv shared his info and that's his decision. But that does not mean that Terry is expected to do the same.

Try asking Dinan to tell you anything about how they reflash the ECU? Or why don't you call up Motec and ask about their stand-alone or try calling Haltek! Good luck.

The bottom line is that this is life... you don't always have perfect information and you make decisions based on what you have in hand.

Is it worth a few hundred dollars to you to KNOW that your tune has retarded the timing proactively? That's your decision to make.

Frankly, I believe Steve did a great job but judging from most of the responses in this thread --- most people did not understand half of what he was talking about and perhaps this first phase of testing is not really usable for those trying to make a decision.

Like I said, it comes down to timing --- and I tell you what, I bet many people here don't fully understand how timing retard will increase engine life while reducing output.... and that is not an insult... we are not all engineers who are expected to understand this stuff. We are END USERS and all we need to know is if the product achieves what we want.

Also remember, this is a PUBLIC FORUM and people are free to post here without much liability. So, I certainly take everything I read here and in any other public media with a grain of salt.

If you are truly interested in purchasing one of the tunes, contact the tuner directly and ask specific questions (in writing if you want) and get the answers (in writing if you want).

[Bubbles]

Scalbert,


In comparing proactive and reactive timing adjustments, what is the actual reduced engine life?

For those of us who will discard this car prior to the 50k mark, is it a real issue or a red herring?

I understand it depends on driving habits, track days etc.

But all things equal, does it really impact 50k-limit owners?

[scalbert]

Originally Posted by MarvelPhx

I could have a lot of fun in this thread. Got all 7,000+ pages of my Seimens MSD80/81 manual right here. Good love the Germans...

Some times I hate German literature and manual. A Siemens single loop process controller had a 258 page manual. An equivalent Eurotherm or Honeywell controller has ten pages.

[scalbert]

Originally Posted by Bubbles

Scalbert,


In comparing proactive and reactive timing adjustments, what is the actual reduced engine life?

For those of us who will discard this car prior to the 50k mark, is it a real issue or a red herring?

I understand it depends on driving habits, track days etc.

But all things equal, does it really impact 50k-limit owners?

50k is not going to be an issue. 100k may not even. It is somewhat difficult to answer since this DME is pretty quick to respond.

[scalbert]

Originally Posted by Bubbles

Tell me when.

http://www.e90post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=189788

Most likely the 3rd week in January.

[alextremo]

Originally Posted by scalbert

It is done by fooling the DME by making it think the engine is slightly back in rotation than it really is.

Does that answer the question?

Originally Posted by scalbert

By offsetting the CPS signal, you are retarding timing. In the case of a knock event, the DME will still respond the same as it would stock. The idea with proactively retarding timing allow sthe DME to run its timing control in a more "comfortable zone".

Thanks scalbert - these posts answered my question.

Two more - does the PROcede use the same process to manage A/F ratios with the TMAP and Fuel Pressure ins/outs? And for both timing and fueling, does the PROcede only suggest different values during out of normal tolerance conditions (i.e. high boost), or all along the operating curves? In other words, are these values basically left to the DME under "normal" boost or are they adjusted by the PROcede regardless?

Thanks again.

[sflgator]

Originally Posted by Bubbles

I understand your points, however YOU may not be the best champion for the "freedom of information march." In fact, your efforts have the opposite effect.

Why? Tell me exactly where I disseminate all the technical and/or secretive info I receive? Who am I telling...BMW, Vishnu, Dinan? Why is so important that sflgator not know how the JB3 works? I am the furthest from an engineer...I am lucky my wife lets me hang pictures on the walls. LOL...please, get real.

[scalbert]

Originally Posted by alextremo

Two more - does the PROcede use the same process to manage A/F ratios with the TMAP and Fuel Pressure ins/outs? And for both timing and fueling, does the PROcede only suggest different values during out of normal tolerance conditions (i.e. high boost), or all along the operating curves? In other words, are these values basically left to the DME under "normal" boost or are they adjusted by the PROcede regardless?

Actually the PROcede and JB3 do similar things with fueling; albeit the outputs are different (back to the D/A versus PWM). The both bias the front O2 sensors at times and also remap the fuel pressure output to the DME. The amount of iinfluence on either is based on the tuners discretion and DME limits. But I would say that each only alters things when under higher than stock boost levels.

[alextremo]

Originally Posted by scalbert

Actually the PROcede and JB3 do similar things with fueling; albeit the outputs are different (back to the D/A versus PWM). The both bias the front O2 sensors at times and also remap the fuel pressure output to the DME. The amount of iinfluence on either is based on the tuners discretion and DME limits. But I would say that each only alters things when under higher than stock boost levels.

Thanks again scalbert. This is really, really good info. I am actually a little embarrassed that I plugged this black box into my $50k new car without knowing this stuff.

For other noobs out there like me, I picked up this book and read it last weekend. It has helped me at least keep up with these conversations. Totally worth the $17 IMO.